Idealism vs Pragmatism - I think that much

[upaloopa]

of what we argue about (discuss) here centers on this.
If Hillary wins idealists will be forced to vote for a pragmatist. If Bernie wins pragmatists will be forced to vote for an idealist.
This isn't everything in a nut shell but it is a big part of what is going on in the backs of our minds I think. I know it is always on my mind.
I am a pragmatist and being forced to vote for an idealist scares the shit out of me.
Half of the country leans or is right wing. So I'd say they will not vote for either a Dem pragmatist or idealist. That means we must depend on independents to win if we Dem's vote for our nominee no matter what her/his political thinking is.
In my mind it boils down to whether independents will vote for an idealist or not. I think not.

[Old Codger]

1. Personally

I have been a registered Ind. all along, I changed my registration for the sole purpose of being able to vote for an idealist in our primary here...So you are mistaken in at least one instance...

[bobalew]

2. Statistically, generalizations do not work....

Idealism or pragmatism, not, so vote for crazy & mean?

[mmonk]

3. Reality vs the injustice of corporatism.

eom

[DanTex]

4. I think realism is in there too.

By that I mean the recognition that a Bernie presidency wouldn't be all that different from a Hillary presidency. There wouldn't be any single payer or free college, because none of that would get through congress.

It's a question of risk/reward. The risks of nominating Bernie are huge, and the rewards are small if any.

[Old Codger]

6. The only chance

Of anything resembling real actual beneficial change will only happen if we also turn the house and senate into Dem. majorities ... irrespective of who becomes our next president.

[ibegurpard]

5. pragmatism is great

When you're negotiating on a level playing field. We are dealing with crazy people and rich people who want to destroy the middle class and take us back to the dark pre-labor days of the 19th century. There can be no compromise with that.

[99Forever]

8. [phone]

Furthermore, anyone who thinks Republicans will cooperate Clinton isn't playing with a full deck.

[CharlotteVale]

11. [phone]

[bunnies]

7. I think perhaps you underestimate how far honesty, integrity...

and steadfast commitment to positions means to some people.

[upaloopa]

17. I agree it means a lot to people.

But in the pitical climate we live in, that will not bring about the outcomes you seek. IMHO

[Garrett78]

9. Large majorities agree with Sanders on many, many issues.

The problem is that many don't realize that. Of course, chances are the Dem nominee would win the blue states, lose the red ones and battle over a handful of swing states regardless of who the nominee is. Does anyone honestly think Sanders wouldn't win California or New York or Illinois? Does anyone honestly think Clinton won't be charged with "socialism?" I don't think Sanders will be the nominee but not because he isn't electable.

[upaloopa]

14. I would bet you dollars to donuts that Hillary

supporters on DU agree with everything Bernie stands for. I can also bet that they don't think he can win the general.

[Garrett78]

16. If believing made it so.

I imagine many also believe Clinton's close ties to the likes of Beacon Global Strategies, large banks, Corrections Corporation of America et al. isn't terribly problematic. And many people believe in a supernatural, omnipotent being. If wishes and buts were candy and nuts...

It isn't just Clinton supporters who agree with Sanders on most issues, it's the public as a whole, as surveys have made clear. However, there's no correlation between what the people want and what gets enacted. Likewise, moneyed interests aren't going to allow someone like Sanders to be a nominee for POTUS, so fear not.

As Robert Jensen wrote, "No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe." And Sanders doesn't fit within those parameters.

[Left Ear]

32. If everyone said that Bernie can't win the general

is going to proven completely wrong.

[frylock]

10. Independent Idealist checking in here..

why do people automatically suspect that indies or unaffiliated voters are conservative?

[upaloopa]

13. I did not say they were conservative

I think they tend to be pragmatic.

[frylock]

15. Think again..

many of us are indies because we realized that neither party is working in our best interests.

[upaloopa]

19. Excuse me but that seems pretty pragmatic to me

[frylock]

20. Yet I support the so-called idealist..

perhaps it's the Sanders supporters who are being pragmatic after all.

[upaloopa]

21. There are a number of reasons for supporting

a candidate. Who is the pragmatist, I think, can't be determined until we know the outcomes. By then it may be too late to fix the damage if there is any.
But then I think supporting Hillary is being a pragmatist and time will tell.

[Garrett78]

22. Time will tell?

The outcome, which clearly points to a Clinton nomination for a variety of reasons, won't prove or disprove your argument.

[Garrett78]

24. What does that have to do with the general election?

When you start talking about independents or those who are non-affiliated, you're clearly talking about the general election and no longer talking about the party nomination. So, let's just say it was Sanders vs. Bush, what does the notion of pragmatism have to do with how those independents or non-affiliated folks would vote? People in, say, Illinois who would have voted for Clinton will instead vote for Bush because Sanders was nominated? Sorry, but that's a severe logic fail.

[upaloopa]

25. It is like this, if the idealist wins the nomination

independents won't vote for him in the general.

[Garrett78]

28. Out of a sense of what's pragmatic?

Because that was your argument. Once the general election comes around, pragmatism plays no part. You have 2 choices. If the person you vote for loses, so be it. Someone isn't going to say, "Gee, I like Sanders more than Bush but voting for Bush is the pragmatic thing to do."

That Sanders is to the left of Clinton and isn't nearly as encumbered by moneyed interests doesn't make him an "idealist," which is a subjective term anyway.

Don't worry, though, Clinton (or Biden) will be the nominee. Even if it's not for the reason you and others claim.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Thank you for being civil and honest about your reservations, upaloopa.

I completely understand why some folks feel this way about Bernie, imo it's a valid reason to oppose him.

At least you're not claiming he doesn't care about women and minorities.


eta and thanks for speaking up about the Daily Mail hit piece on Bernie in GD.

[Armstead]

18. It's not either/or

In terms of the candidates, I'd say Sanders and Clinton and O'Malley (and the obligatory Webb and Chaffee) are all a mix of those qualities.

I'd also say the supporters are also such a mix.

Personally, as a Bernie guy I don't think it's very pragmatic on any level to keep doing the same thing over and over, when the results are not moving in a positive diction, in eitehr a partisan or a national or global sense.

I don't think it is unpragmatic to try something somewhat different.

I'd also note that neither Bill Clinton or President Obama were elected strictly on a pragmatic basis. Remember "Hope and Change"?

[PowerToThePeople]

23. Uh, I am not forced to vote for anyone

I will NEVER cast a vote for some I know works against the common good of the people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I'm an idealist who votes pragmatically.

I think it's damned pragmatic for a Socialist to vote for a Socialist.

[daleanime]

27. Sorry, but I have to disagree....

with both the definitions and the result you foresee. But have a lovely evening anyways.

[LWolf]

29. Sort of.

I think there are different kinds of pragmatism.

I actually think Sanders is a pragmatist; the right kind of pragmatist.

He knows he can't wave a wand and achieve all his goals. He knows how to find common ground and take one step forward at a time, without actually changing where he stands or giving up ground.

The difference is this:

Way too many Democratic pragmatists do just that. They keep giving up ground we've already fought for and won in the name of compromise, instead of holding firm and trying to find a way forward.

Of course, the excuse is always the Republican opposition. Sometimes that's even true. Sometimes it's because that brand of "pragmatist" is working harder for their corporate donors than for the voters they represent.

I'm not just an idealist. I'm a defiant idealist. I've had to be, because of the weight of the pressure from so many "pragmatists" who bombard me with demands to "give up" ideals and accept defeat.

I won't do that. I don't have to achieve the ideal to "win." I think we get a hell of a lot further down the path when we set our sights high, whether we get all the way there or not. So I set those ideals right up there, and I don't give up. Sometimes I just have to stand my ground and fight not to be pushed back or pushed off that path. Sometimes I can take a step forward.

I NEVER willingly take a step back. And that's the difference.

Here's another difference: the anger that I experience when a majority DO take those steps back...that changes idealism into cynicism. It can engender bitterness and disengagement.

So I'd rather stay idealistic. Defiantly so.

[upaloopa]

30. "Way too many Democratic pragmatists do just that. They keep giving up ground we've already fought

for and won in the name of compromise, instead of holding firm and trying to find a way forward."

So why don't the idealists take over and we get out of the way.

Put Bernie in the White House and get it done!

You will turn on him too and blame him when he doesn't deliver.

See everyone is screwing things up but you! You are like the libertarians. You can say anything you want because you will never have to back them up. You will never be the one going forward. You will never put your ass on the line you don't have to. You can sit in your ivory tower and throw stones on those in the game trying to get things done.

[LWolf]

37. No.

I think I already pointed out that Sanders himself is a pragmatist, and that he wouldn't be making anything happen by magic.

Do what you want. I'll keep moving forward.

But keep up those assumptions. You know what they're doing for you.

[aidbo]

31. Pragmatism has pulled the party to the Right, idealism shows them the way back Left.

[Bonobo]

35. Precisely.

Thank you. That's it in a nutshell.

[aidbo]

36. .

[Todays_Illusion]

33. You are calling yourself a pragmist but then proceed to say you will have trouble

voting for an idealist, that is not pragmatic. I then wondered why you think Independents will be pragmatic. I have discovered this about Independents, they are independent because they are the least informed about the candidates and issues, they are also not likely to vote unless there is a clear front runner, they will then place their vote, some motivated to stop the predicted winner, some to jump on the winning bandwagon, they will claim to be pragmatic.

[Bonobo]

34. Here is the problem:

The "pragmatist" president goes to the Republicans and says:

"I am a pragmatist. See? I am meeting you halfway."

The Republicans STILL play the game and call the "pragmatist" an idealist, a socialist, and negotiate to the halfway point of the halfway point. And that is actually the 25% point.

We need to START at 100% if we hope to get to 50%.

THAT is the problem.

IOW, even a pragmatist will be victimized by the game.

If we keep playing to not lose, we lose.